The Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Optical PDCS Survey. II. Evolution in the Space Density of Clusters of Galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the first dynamical study of the optically selected Palomar Distant Cluster Survey (PDCS). We have measured redshifts for 17 clusters of galaxies in the PDCS and velocity dispersions for a subset of 11. Using our new cluster redshifts, we redetermine the X-ray luminosities and upper limits. We show that 11 of 12 PDCS clusters we observed are real overdensities of galaxies. Most clusters have velocity dispersions appropriate for clusters of galaxies. However, we find a fraction (about one-third) of objects in the PDCS that have velocity dispersions in the range of groups of galaxies (200 ± 100 km s -1 ) but have richnesses appropriate for clusters of galaxies. Within our survey volume of 31.7 × 10 4 h -3 Mpc 3 ( q 0 = 0.1) for richness class 2 and greater clusters, we measure the richness function, X-ray luminosity function (using both the detections and upper limits), and the mass function derived from our velocity dispersions. We confirm that the space density, as a function of richness, of clusters of galaxies in the PDCS is ∼5 times that of the Abell catalog. Excluding the above fraction of one-third of objects with low velocity dispersions, we measure a space density ∼3 times that of the Abell catalog for equivalent mass clusters of galaxies, raising the possibility that the Abell catalog is incomplete. However, our space density estimates are in agreement with other low-redshift, optically selected cluster surveys such as the EDCC, APM, and EDCC2. Our X-ray luminosity function agrees with other measurements based on both X-ray and optically selected samples, so we find that the PDCS does not miss clusters of galaxies that would be found in an X-ray selected survey. Our resulting mass function, centered on 10 14 M ☉ h -1 , agrees with the expectations from such surveys as the Canadian Network for Observational Cosmology cluster survey, though errors on our mass measurements are too large to constrain cosmological parameters. We do show that future machine-based, optically selected surveys can be used to constrain cosmological parameters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".